NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 25% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 914 MHz versus 732 MHz
- Environ 10% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 44.96 GTexel / s versus 41.0 GTexel / s
- Environ 43% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 448
- Environ 10% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,439 gflops versus 1,311.7 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 2.8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 210 Watt
- 3.2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1280 MB
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.396 versus 34.324
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 139.158 versus 121.575
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 versus 2133
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3333
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 versus 2133
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3333
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 29 November 2011 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 914 MHz versus 732 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 44.96 GTexel / s versus 41.0 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 448 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,439 gflops versus 1,311.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 210 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1280 MB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 42.396 versus 34.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 139.158 versus 121.575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3333 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
- Environ 52% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 3800 MHz versus 1000 or 2500 MHz
- 3.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1181.463 versus 373.644
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.978 versus 2.54
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 58.37 versus 39.412
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4590 versus 4148
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4590 versus 4148
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4197 versus 3350
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3800 MHz versus 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1181.463 versus 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.978 versus 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 58.37 versus 39.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4590 versus 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4590 versus 4148 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4197 versus 3350 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2585 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 217 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9730 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 42.396 | 34.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 373.644 | 1181.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.54 | 3.978 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 39.412 | 58.37 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 139.158 | 121.575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4148 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4148 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3333 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 | 4197 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GF110 |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 29 November 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 886 | 889 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $289 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 914 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,439 gflops | 1,311.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 448 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 44.96 GTexel / s | 41.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 3,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 or 80 GB / s | 152.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 or 2500 MHz | 3800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 or GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 256 DDR
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
NVIDIAGeForce Go 6800 Ultra
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K500M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8310E
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M vs
AppleM2 8-core
